Nowadays, we could enjoy numerous benefits and scientific discoveries that make our lives better. We use new more efficient medicines to recovery from various diseases; we use cosmetics to create beautiful images and astonish people; we use credible research data related to ways a particular living being could respond to one or another stressor. However, we do not think about methods that are explored to make all things mentioned above safe and guarantee that no adverse effects will appear. In fact, every new potentially useful discovery rests on thousands of experiments on animals who died to prove the efficiency of a particular drug or, on the contrary, to warn individuals about a dangerous character of a certain solution. Therefore, in the age of humanism, these methods are inappropriate as no living being should suffer. In such a way, the practice of animal testing should be prohibited because of its pernicious impact on their health.
By the statistics, only in the USA about 12 million of animals are used in research ( US Statistics ). 93% of these living beings are not counted under the US Animal Welfare Act ( US Statistics ). 38% of them die during severe medical procedures. 100 million animals are killed during biology lessons ( Experiments on Animals: Overview ). The given numbers prove the existence of genocide against animals in the coherent society. The problem is complicated by the tendency towards the further increase in the number of laboratory animals and research works that include testing on them.
In this regard, it is critical to alter the situation and stop this genocide. We now stand on the edge as the further deterioration of the situation will result in unprecedented cruelty and the increase in the number of killed animals globally. The fact is that animals should have the same rights humans have. They are not able to file a lawsuit against an offender which means that our duty is to protect them and avoid unnecessary deaths. At the moment, the US law and legal regulation in the majority of other states allow that animals could be burned, brain-damaged, starved, etc. to acquire a needed result and prove the efficiency of a particular measure ( Harm and Suffering ). To improve the situation in the sphere, the legislation should be altered.
Moreover, the modern science could destroy traditionally potent argument of the adherers of animals testing stating that numerous life-saving cures and medicines had been discovered due to the use of living beings ( Arguments against animal testing ). However, today researchers acquire an opportunity to study cell cultures in specific laboratories or administer microdoses too small harm human volunteers to avoid unnecessary cruelty and protect thousands of lives (Akhtar 410). This alternative might help to solve the problem.
Under these conditions, we now should unite and demonstrate our social position by demanding the government to prohibit using animals for experiments in different spheres. First of all, the legislation related to the sphere should be altered as all living beings should be provided with guarantees that they will not be killed because of another creatures vague need. To alter these inhumane laws, we should organize a social movement aiming at the reconsideration of the role of animals in research and improvement of their positions. One should remember, that every creature has the right to life and no one is allowed to infringe it. We should cooperate to protect all living beings and stop this killing machine.
Scientists spend much of their time testing products that are designed for human beings on animals to be certain about the effects these products might have. When all this is done the lives of the animals concerned is put into imminent risk and nobody cares whether they make it through the experiment or not. As if that is not enough, when one animal losses life in the course of this experiments, the scientists pick another and continue with their barbaric deeds oblivious of the increasing number of lives that they endanger.
As science develops with technology people need to stand up and fight for the rights of these animals, which will be condemned to the path of death where they have no voice to determine how they will be treated. This paper seeks to bring out the negative issues associated with animal testing. Animal testing should be abolished as it is immoral, against animal rights and does not provide reliable results.
Difference in Reaction
Over the time, it has been proofed that animals react differently to various drugs among themselves which makes it very hard to argue with certainty the effects of the drug to the body. Incidentally, the bodies of animals are different from that of human beings, given that animals can take some kind of substances which when eaten by human beings make them sick (Earie, 2007).
Based on this fact, animals tend to react to drugs in a different way which significantly varies from the way human being will react to the very same drug. This has been proofed in many instances where a drug which has been taught to be safe for human use having been tested on thousands has ended up being detrimental to human beings causing some deformities or even death when tried on human beings (Hursthouse, 2000).
Certainty of Animal Testing
When animals are used to test drugs, the main idea is not to verify whether the drugs are safe to be used by human beings in treating the specific diseases that they are meant for but rather to test whether they can be taken a step further and be tested on human beings.
This means that human beings are still put on experiment using these drugs, and end up suffering various abnormalities or even loose their lives, to ascertain whether they have any effects even after killing numerous animals in the name of testing the safety of the drugs. It is a pity that during this animal tests, there is no antidotes prepared so incase there is any potential harm to human beings when this drugs eventually get to be experimented on them there is no way this injuries can be taken care of (Earie, 2007).
Morality issues
Supporters of animal testing argue that it is morally correct to use animals in testing of drugs than to use human beings which would amount to having an intention to commit murder.
On the contrary, millions of animals are subjected to painful procedures on the cruelest ways that they can without caring to provide even an antidote to the animals making the whole process uncouth (Fleming & Worden, 2004). On top of that, the idea of infecting the animals with diseases or other disorders which one is not sure of getting a cure is in itself an act of intentional killing which is not morally correct by any definition that one might want to give to morality.
In conjunction with that, it is against morals for one to cause suffering intentionally which is exactly what is done when animals are subjected to the pains that result from the conditions they are compelled to by people who just want to proof their ingenuity (Fleming & Worden, 2004).
Availability of Substitute Methods
With the development of technology there has been discovery of various scientific ways of generating, experimenting and even testing of drugs without necessarily involving the whole animal. The various ways that may be used include tissue and cell culture system, cloned human skin cells and computer or even mathematical models among others which do not cause suffering to animals and at the same time produce perfect results.
It should also be noted that this new methods can use human cells and therefore, giving reliable information about the effects of this drugs to human beings rather than using animals belonging to a different species for experiments whose results will be applied to another species (Hursthouse, 2000).
Violation of Animal Rights
In todays world, we are all aware about existence of basic rights which should not be violated at all costs. Animal rights have also been a subject of discussion for a long time now, but a general agreement is that animals have intrinsic rights which should be respected. (Watson, 2009)
Keeping this in mind therefore, by supporting animal testing we will be violating the very basic animal rights that we should be taking care of by subjecting these animals to cruelty and prematurely ending their lives. Notably also is the fact that animals have no power to agree or disagree to what is done and are therefore forced to what would have been against their wish were it under different circumstances (Hayhurst, 2000).
Failure to deliver as concerns complicated diseases
Evidently some of the complex diseases like cancer and AIDS which have been under experiment for centuries now still do not have a vaccine leave alone a cure years later after millions of animals have cruelly been subjected to various tests which are claimed to assist in research (Watson, 2009).
The idea that there are animals present for use at the scientists use has made them narrow their researches to search for a cure instead of other beneficial advancements like finding how to prevent the spread of these diseases and hence save many people who continue to die day in day out.
Costly Yet Findings are not Guaranteed
The cost analysis of animal testing is also alarming considering the billions of dollars that are injected each year and the number of animals that are involved yet what comes out is not perfect. We continue to allocate money to this course every year in the name of research whose results will end up being re-tested again using human beings whom we claim we do not want to use as test gargets (Kotler & Lee, 2005).
In many instances it can be proofed that drugs have been banned from the market after extensive research on animal testing and consuming a lot of cash, because of the dire effects that they cause to human beings.
Conclusion
The benefits that animal testing provide to the human race has not been proven and if the benefits exist, there are several other ways of achieving them which are more humane and does not inflict pain on animals. Coherently, it is useless to conduct a procedure which those who perform it are not sure of it and will in the end re-test it again.
As a matter of fact, the perpetrators of this barbaric act of animal testing claim that they want to save human beings from any effects of the drugs however, they end up risking peoples lives when they start testing the drugs on human beings. It is therefore, paramount that the issue of animal testing be re-addressed and be banned as it is immoral and goes against the rights of animals.
References
Earle, S. (2007). Theory and Research in Promoting Public Health. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Fleming, M., & Worden, D. (2004). Thinking about God and Morality. London: Heinemann.
Hayhurst, C. (2000). Animal Testing: The Animal Rights Debate. New York: The Rosen Publishing Group.
Hursthouse, R. (2000). Ethics, Humans and Other Animals: An Introduction With Readings. London: Routledge.
Kotler, P., & Lee, N. (2005). Corporate Social Responsibility: Doing the Most Good for Your Company. New York: Wiley.
Watson, S. (2009). Animal Testing: Issues and Ethics. New York: The Rosen Publishing Group.
The use of animals in laboratory testing is very beneficial to the animals as well as human beings. There is perceived to be a lot of similarities between the physiological mechanism of some animals and that of man. For instance, the physiology of guinea pig is considered to be 98% similar to that of human being.
That is the reason why they are mostly used in the laboratory testing since they are perceived to give results that can relate to the results that would be received if human beings were used in the research. A lot of the knowledge that is known about hormones was discovered by studying the behavior of mice in the laboratory. Similarly, most of the knowledge that we have about cardiovascular is as a result of laboratory study of dogs.
Likewise, the use of animals in Laboratory testing help to discover some drugs that are used by animals as well as human beings. Thus, as much as it is beneficial to man to use animals in laboratories testing, it is also equally important to animals as well. Subsequently, veterinarians who have been equipped for concern of animals are closely involved in taking care and treatment of the animals that are used in the laboratory.
Thus, these veterinarians have realized that the results that are realized from the animal research are very crucial in the improvement of the health of human being as well as that of animals. It is noted that a great extent in the advancement of veterinary medicine has been as a result of research with animals.
For instance, the parvovirus vaccine that is routinely administered to dogs has saved death of many dogs. Similarly, the research in the reproductive physiology on animals has greatly assisted many species of animals from extinction. Therefore, animal research is very necessary for a continued improvement in the health and safety of both animals as well as human beings (American Association for Animals in Laboratory par. 3).
It is beneficial to use animals for laboratory testing because animals such as mice as well as pigs have short life cycles. They take much shorter time than human being to grow and mature. The short life cycles of these animals means that scientists have an ample time to study the behavior of these animals when subjected to various conditions over their entire life or over a generation.
This helps the researcher very much to make appropriate inferences that will help in the development of appropriate drugs for animals or human beings. Shorter time period that is associated with animals helps the research process to realize appropriate results over a shorter time period than if human beings were used as the research instruments.
Quicker realization of the research results indicates that the drugs that are under investigation are in a position to be developed faster than if human beings were used in the research process. Quicker development of the required drugs helps to elevate the suffering from both animals as well as human beings. It also means that lesser amount of money will be used in these researches. This is because the longer the time a research process takes, the higher the cost of undertaking the research.
This is because those instruments that are used in the research process whether being animals or human beings will require to being fed and taken care of. Thus, by prolonging the research period, it means that these instruments will consume more which will subsequently increase the cost of undertaking the research (GEARI par 16).
Works Cited
American Association for Animals in Laboratory. Animal Research FAQ .12 Feb. 2010. Web.
GEARI. What are some arguments in favor of testing on animals? 23 Aug. 2007.Web. Nov.2011.
Animal experimentation is the process by which live animals are put through various tests. They are introduced to certain conditions that cannot be exposed to human beings for fear of the complications that are unknown and may result to death in the end. The experiments are run on various animals such as guinea pigs, rats and even monkeys.
They are used in the place of human beings because they display genomes almost similar to that of the human beings. There is still another reason why animal experiment is carried out and this is to find out about various characteristics of the animals themselves and how they may react to various circumstances (Smart &William 19).
Some people may find the procedure of animal experimentation as being right and fine and others may be wholly against it. There are indeed advantages that may come along with trying out animal experimentation in the end to the human beings. Taking a quick reference from the act utilitarianism, an act or activity is judged morally right depending on the number of individuals it will benefit in the end. What this theory leaves out is that there is a party that may suffer especially the weaker or the minority group.
The act utilitarianism looks better in theory than in practice because in many instances, we cannot carefully analyze a situation and even have the ability to predict the future of that particular act. However, this theory is considered superior since its main goal is acquiring the multitude happiness of the highest number of people.
Using the act utilitarianism animal experimentation is necessary since it can be used to reduce human suffering in the medical field. It is more important to sacrifice the suffering of several animals to carry out investigations and tests that may result into the breakthrough of a certain cure or vaccine that may help thousands of people or even the humanity at large for many generations.
In such a situation, it is not noble to let people continue dying just because some researchers were discontinued from using animals for their experiment. In the long run if a cure is found or a vaccine there are more people who will benefit and this translates to a higher number of people who are happy.
The suffering of animals is what may be the reason why some people oppose the act utilitarianism in this context. However, it can be seen that the suffering of the animals can be reduced to a minimum with the use of anesthesia when carrying out procedures that may be uncomfortable or even painful. The conditions in the laboratory can be brought to suit the animal under experiment so that they may not undergo the suffering and can hence continue with the tests without raising much alarm for the activists (Fox 36).
In most countries such as the United States of America or even in the United Kingdom, most prescription drugs before they are exposed or released to the human beings for consumption have to be tested on the animals to ensure that they have negligible or no toxicity at all. This is indeed important since it seeks to protect very many people from harm or suffering if they consume toxic medication. Sample animals for the experiment are used to test in this case to ensure the safety of thousands or even millions of people.
Act utilitarianism point out that some animals such as the chimpanzees share about ninety-nine percent of the genes with the human beings and the latter shares slightly less with other animals. It can be immoral to carry out a test of a medicine or a chemical on a human being for the first time, exposing them to all sorts of complications or even death. This could have been tried out on a non-human animal that is not greatly dependable by other animals.
For example, if a child is used and they die or are incapacitated for life they run the loss of not being helpful around the house or even growing up to bring up a family and taking care of their aging parents. Animals on the other hand are greatly prolific and learn to take care of themselves the moment they are born and hence are not dependable on one another (Ellen and Jeffery 43).
As mentioned before the act utilitarianism is theoretical, carrying out the actual procedure may be rather tasking, and so many other parties may be compromised in the process. For instance, some animals may be exposed to various types of bacteria and virus and if the researches are done, carrying out experiments on them may release them to the wild, having not carefully gone through the prognosis of the previous treatment.
The animal may hence transmit the condition they developed from the laboratory and may end up in a pandemic in the forest or jungle and this may even make a particular species extinct. The animal experiment in this case had started to serve the larger good to a highest number of people but it ended up destroying generations ecological set-up and animal history.
The actual analysis of the facts shows that very few medical breakthroughs have been made through human experimentation. Almost half of the prescription drugs approved in the United States of America and the United Kingdom for human consumption through the animal experiments have been withdrawn because they manifested into the side effects that were harmful to human beings. This also results into millions of animals dying in experimentation leading to a niche in the ecological balance of the animal kingdom (Francione 24).
With the wake of technology animal experiment have advanced to the cloning of the animals that has seen the value of life discarded. This does not lead to the happiness of a greater number as the scientists will have the attitude of creating and destroying animal lives at their disposal. The animal experiments give human beings the mentality that animals are objects and this raises moral questions; is there a degree of morality when it comes to handling different living beings. The chimpanzee with one percent less of genes as the human is exposed to the animal testing and yet human beings are not. To test a certain drug on a human being, their consent is necessary but in the case of animals, they are just forced to go ahead with the procedure. There are alternatives in testing drugs such as tissue culture of human cells and hence this is bound to be more accurate in the findings. However, this does not cross out animal testing as in the case of veterinary medicine, which requires only animals to be used for the accurate findings.
Works Cited
Ellen, Paul and Jeffery, Paul. Why Animal Experimentation Matters: The Use of Animals in Medical Research. Chicago: Transaction Publishers, 2001. Print
Fox, Michael. The Case for Animal Experimentation: An Evolutionary and Ethical Perspective. London: University of California Press, 1986. Print
Francione, Gary. Animals, Property and the Law. New York: Temple University, 1995. Print
Smart, John and William, Bernard. Utilitarianism: For and Against. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973. Print
No one can negate the fact that medical research is in deed very important in the field of medicine. It generally represents various types of researches like applied, transactional or basic research that are usually carried out with a main aim of supporting knowledge present in the field of medicine.
Conducting medical research may involve use of animals, simulations on computers and experiments conducted with cells as well as other organs and tissues. However, the most common type of research involves use of animals since they have been used for many years. This is due to the fact that some animals are similar to human beings in several ways and therefore they can be used effectively to conduct some of the necessary steps and procedures in medicine.
However, the practice has raised considerable debate about the correctness of using animals for medical research due to moral and ethical implications of the same. Some people feel that use of animals should be banned while others feel that the practice ought to continue. Therefore, this paper shall critically analyze the question whether animals should be used for medical research.
Thesis
As much as it is a controversial topic, there are many reasons that support the use of animals in medical research. To begin with, benefits that the human fraternity has benefited with due to use of animals in research need no further emphasis. The research has accomplished much in the scientific field since scientists have been using animals to test their theories and alter the same in accordance to the results obtained.
No one can actually stand and declare that they have not benefited from animal research and if not so, people closely related to them may have reaped a lot of benefits from the same. A lot of the vaccines and the antibiotics that are being used currently have resulted from the animal research.
The practice can be termed as a life saver because many lives are saved every day by the practice. Scientists use animals to test new medications as well as new treatment procedures like surgery since many animals are almost like human beings and respond to medicine and other forms treatments in similar ways. It is therefore possible to use animals while testing the dangers and the toxicity of new drugs and by so doing; it is possible to protect human beings from the dangers that can emanate from the use of such drugs.
Anyone who can figure out the dangers of using medicine without testing the reaction of the same cannot possibly oppose the use of animals in medical research. The main reason of the practice is to ensure the safety of human beings in all circumstances which is equally important as preserving life.
Human life is very important and should be preserved at all costs. Medical research not only allows treatment procedures to be carried out, but it also enables researchers to come up with vaccines that are used for prevention purposes. Disease prevention is very important because were it not for vaccines that have been developed, many lives would have been wiped out by the diseases that are present in the world.
A study of history indicates that before current developments in the medical field, some disease outbreaks used to cause death to a very large group of people in a population. That causes big loses in every country as human resource is an important asset of each and every country. In addition, it has been possible to develop vaccines that have helped to eradicate some dangerous diseases like small pox and measles in some countries.
Apart from the innumerable benefits of the practice, animals that are used for the practice are treated with dignity to avoid violating their rights. According to the studies of National Institutes of Health (n. d.), Congress and Public Health Service has contributed greatly to ensure that animals used for research are treated in a humane way.
They have set laws and regulations as well as the necessary policies to safeguard animals. For instance, there is always a guide that stipulates the type of environment that each and every animal requires as well as the type of the care necessary. It therefore does not make much sense to say that use of animals in research is unethical as there are measures which are already established to prevent any unethical treatment (Prate, 2002).
Antithesis
On the other hand, use of animals for medical research is not only hurtful but also not necessary. However, it is important to note that the fact that it is not necessary means that there are other alternatives of conducting medical research and does knot negate the fact that human life is important and should be protected at all costs.
Although the alternatives methods may not give the same results as animal tests, there is a high possibility that with some developments the same can become beneficial and eliminate the trouble of using animals. If more research was carried, cell culture studies and computers can be used effectively although the results may not be as reliable as results of animal studies.
Animals like human beings feel pain and therefore, given that there are a wide range of procedures carried in medical research, they are exposed to so much pain. Although it is possible to minimize pain by use of anesthesia, scientists are always reluctant to do so because they argue that it can interfere with the results.
As much as there are some guidelines that are given to make sure that animals used for testing are treated in a humane way, exposing them to so much pain is the main disadvantage of the practice identified by the animal advocates as studies of Algoe (2010) indicate.
Apart from pain, procedures used in animal research are dangerous and pose great risk to animals. For instance, it is true that, animals are used to test new medicines before they are released in to the market. Some of these medicines end up harming the animals as they may contain dangerous side effects.
On the same note, since animals are used even in testing cosmetics, studies of Algoe (2010) illustrate that rabbits used to test the effects of the cosmetics and other skin products are usually killed after the research. Animals are also used to test the effect of corrosive chemicals and acids. During these painful tests, animals are not given any pain relief for the same reason of avoiding any interference with the results.
Further studies illustrate that the Environmental Protection Agency requires that pesticides be tested first on dogs before they are released in to the market. No one would want to imagine the suffering such animals go through when being forced to inhaled dangerous poisonous chemicals. Various inhuman tests carried out on animals may be beyond the scope of this paper but the truth is, there being other alternatives, there is no reason why animals should be exposed to such cruelty.
According to Algoe (2010), about fifty thousand animals die every year due to problems encountered in the process of medical research. A lot of the researches conducted are a clear indication that even if it is not all procedures in medical research that lead to death, the fact is there are many which claim the life of animals.
For instance, one company that manufactures food for pets kills many more in the process of production while testing the effectiveness of different types of food. All animals are important ranging from dogs, cats, donkeys and rats to mention just a few and ought to be protected and treated with dignity. Bent on that, it is clear why the use of animals in medical research should be banned as it is not morally appropriate.
Synthesis
It is true that human race benefits greatly from the use of animals in the medical research. It is also true that the practice is inappropriate because it harms and kills the animals. Therefore, it is a practice that is beneficial to human beings while being destructive to animals.
It is important to take care of human life and on the other hand, it is still important to ensure the well fare of animals since they are living things and deserve to be treated as such. At this point no one would disagree with the fact that animals should only be used for medical research as the last option. In addition, even at such a point important measures ought to be put in place to prevent any inhuman treatment as well as minimizing the severity of the consequences.
Research conducted indicates that some products like cosmetics and household products need not to be tested on animals since there are other alternatives. Moreover, some people have understood the dangers of animal testing and as a result, some centers like Johns Hopkins Center for Alternatives to animal Testing have been opened.
It is a center that was opened with a main aim of developing new methods that can replace animal testing. Although it is a costly project because it involves use of new methods and old methods simultaneously to ensure that the results are consistence, various organizations as well as the government should ensure that enough funds are available to help the center achieve its goal and vision of finding alternative means of testing.
As much as possible, it is important to use other methods of testing which are inclusive of in-vitro tests, human clinical tests and the computer software. Human clinical tests make use of human beings to conduct various experiments in a clinical set up.
While used appropriately, the alternative tests can successfully give almost or similar results and by so doing, the life of animals will be saved and also the life of human beings. It is important to point out that some alternatives like the use of animal cells, organs, tissues and other parts are not appropriate because even if they spare the animal a lot of pain, an animal must be killed in order to obtain such internal organs.
If all the alternatives fail to work and the only option is to use animals, then it is necessary to employ appropriate measures to ensure that animals are prevented from much suffering. It is true that anesthesia my interfere with results but what would prevent scientists to undertake research and search for better methods of pain relief that may not interfere with their results.
If it was possible for the same scientists to discover better forms of pain relief to be used while treating human beings, is it also not possible to develop pain reliefs for animals which cannot interfere with other procedures involved? In addition, studies of Prate (2002) illustrate that allowing experimentation does not mean that all tests should be carried out even them that are appropriate.
On the same note, the same study explains that although the researcher was using mice for the study, it was not possible to continue with all the tests since some would have exposed the poor animals to unnecessary stress and pain. It is therefore possible to allow only appropriate tests that cannot cause pain and result to other unfavorable conditions.
It is time the government and other stake holders take the issue of using animals for testing seriously. If there are laws that safeguard animals from maltreatment by other member members of the public, there should be rules and laws to safe guard the animals from being destroyed during medical research.
It does not make any sense to take action against people who kill animals on the roads and at the same times continue to kill more animals in the laboratory. Since animals are not like human beings who can refuse to be tested, it is only the human species that can help solve the problem.
It is not only the authorities that should control unnecessary animal testing but also the general public. For instance, what would happen if all of us refused to buy products that have manufactured by the companies that use animal testing? All of us have a duty and a responsibility of preventing inhumane as well as unnecessary killing of animals.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is important to mention that the question can be answered differently in different perspectives. For instance, use of utilitarian ethical theories disqualifies the fact that animal research exposes the animal to pain since in such a perspective, the correctness of an action is dependent on the benefits of the same (Paul & Paul, 2001).
Similarly, another person may argue that protesting against killing animals in research is inappropriate because human beings kill animals for other purposes like to obtain meat. Being aware of the perspectives that have been used, this paper has tried not only to use all the perspectives, but also to put together different approaches without being so much focused on any.
Animal testing denotes the use of animals in medical experiments to unveil the potency, safety, toxicity, and viability of developed drugs. Concurrently, the phenomenon also applies to other biological experiments, which utilize animals as specimens. The method incorporates the administration of pharmaceutical compounds into biological systems (test animals).
This usually occurs for scientific purposes and medical developments. The process is debatable and has been disputed by animal activists, religious groups, and ethical communities who believe that the trend is immoral and inappropriate since animals cannot be compared with human beings (Panza & Potthast, 2010).
Animal testing usually involve vertebrates like rodents, cats, dogs, birds, and Guinea pigs among others. Since this is a disputable phenomenon, where one can argue for or against the act, this paper supports the aspects of animal testing with bountiful reasons based on its viability in investigating pharmacological compounds. Without animal testing, numerous drugs, which currently help the humankind, could have missed.
Since human beings cannot commence crude pharmaceutical investigations as test specimens, using test animals is significant in this context. It is advisable to execute scientific investigations elsewhere before introducing them into human beings. It is crucial to agree that animal testing might be unethical phenomenon as argued by some groups; nonetheless, it should continue following its merits and contributions to the humankind in the realms of drug investigations and scientific discoveries.
Animal Testing: Debatable Questions
With regard to animal testing, debatable questions emerge. In this paper, Should animal testing be abandoned due to ethical claims surrounding it? forms the debated question. This question tries to unveil whether it is viable for biologists and medical scientists to cease from using animals for experimental investigations.
Despite the conventional use of these animals in numerous scientific experiments, it is still debatable on their viability and potency. Arguably, the animal testing phenomenon should continue with regard to scientific investigations.
The need for efficacy, safety, novelty, and certainty in the realms of drug-use require thorough investigative experiments, which can only materialize when test animals are incorporated. Firstly, some animal have systems that resemble those of human beings; thus, the ability to use such animals give a broader chance of executing an elaborate experimental investigation.
Using animals as representative of humans is a critical phenomenon when scrutinized critically. There are numerous individuals who have disputed this claim as stated in the research question. The desire to continue with the animal testing phenomenon has infuriated numerous activists who are against it (Panza & Potthast, 2010).
Nonetheless, it is evident and appropriate that this phenomenon should continue for further discoveries to be realized. It is questionable how further medical research will occur and how this will materialize without the use of test animals. This is an impossible phenomenon, which demands those who are arguing against animal testing to reconsider their stands.
Another issue is that human beings cannot be used as experimental animals. The drugs administered into humans must be of some quality, minimized toxicity, viable to use, potent, safe, and effective. This means that they have been investigated and approved by the concerned bodies after scientific investigations. If animal testing will be abandoned, no effective experimentation will occur on biological vessels.
Evidently, invitro (using experimental tubes) experimentations are slow and incomprehensive. This means that scientific investigations will delay and sometimes results might not occur. It is vital to consider that animal testing has helped significantly since its inception several decades ago. It has remained a viable, trusted, and considerable experimental design for pharmaceutical products and other scientific investigations.
Harrison & Hester (2006), which identifies alternative of animal testing, agrees that attaining an alternative of this trend is daunting and minimally achievable. Scientific considerations support this trend since there are limited alternatives to replace the method comprehensively (Harrison & Hester, 2006).
Those who are against animal testing claim that animals are not human beings and equating the two is inconsiderable. Evidently, animal are not exact copies of humans. There are numerous differences noticeable amidst the two factions. Additionally, they argue that what works best in a guinea pig (an experimental animal), might not exactly perform in humans.
The two factions (humans and test animals) are different hence the assumption that they can emulate each other is misled. Notably, this argument is understandable; however, as the situation stands, it is still appropriate to conduct animal testing to help in research investigations. Humans can hardly be used for crude or undeveloped researches as the ones done with test animals. This means that animal testing is still the best option.
According to Schmidt (2001), which discusses the aspects of animal testing, recognizes that it is important to infer that what is inconsumable for test animals is similarly consumable for humans. It is possible to note the adverse effects of drugs with animals, make appropriate changes in the composition of the tested drug, and later emerge with effective, safe, and potent compound worth human utilization.
Watson (2009), which describes the ethical issues related to animal testing, argues that some ethical claims behind the animal testing are baseless when compared to human lives saved daily due to animal testing executed to investigate proper and effective drugs. A mere claim that it is immoral to inject or administer unworthy compounds into an innocent animal while doing research is superfluous. This simply means that those who are against animal testing hardly want researches to be done using animals.
This is good and considerable; however, these very people hardly provide viable alternatives that can work better compared to the conventional animal testing provisions. Besides, they are also among those who gain from the findings and results achieved from such investigations. Evidently, almost all drugs currently used in the world at one point passed through animal testing to unveil their viability, safety, efficacy, toxicity levels, and other viable provisions demanded in this context.
Concurrently, it is inappropriate to abandon animal testing as claimed by the activists. The current discoveries on genetics, reproduction, developmental biology, and study of behaviors among others could have not materialized minus animal testing.
Additionally, there are other viable provisions that characterize the phenomenon besides the known pharmaceutical investigations which usually occur using test animals as stipulated before. In these mentioned fields, there are still considerable knowledge gaps that will necessitate further application of animal testing in order to unveil additional information.
This phenomenon can hardly occur minus animal testing since there will be no specimens for further research. The ethical claims fronted by the mentioned activists should cease from hindering further investigations (Watson, 2009). It is evident that discoveries made from animal testing are numerous and helpful to the human race as indicated earlier. The need for more investigations and application of animal testing will continue to exist following its viability, applicability, and reliability in the aspects of research.
The viewpoint that animals equally have moral rights is evident; however, it is disputable in this context since it acts as a hindrance to lucrative investigations and discoveries that are helpful to the humankind. Hayhurst (2000), which debates on animal rights, denotes that individuals who perceive animal as having rights are equally accurate in their opinions; nonetheless, they should also consider the merits of animal testing to their lives and beyond.
This relates to the ethical arguments posted with regard to this topic. It forms the center of argument from various people. It is crucial to denote that animal testing has numerous provisions worth noting in varying contexts. This relates to its viability and potency in unveiling the less investigated claims with regard to life. According to various sources, some arguments regarding the aspects of animal testing are invalid and misleading (Hayhurst, 2000). They simply emerge from undue compassion for animals.
This contributes to why this paper agrees with the continuity of animal testing. Precisely, its merits surpass its baseless flaws numerous times. It is recommendable to scrutinize these arguments before they derail the realities that encompass a given matter. It is crucial to consider such provisions following their viability in this context.
Additionally, those who argue against animal testing claim that such animals lack the capacity to express themselves hence can hardly show their pain, dissatisfaction, and suffering.
This is a critical claim; however, it is not enough to support the ban against animal testing. Conversely, scientists, medics, and biologists who use such animals apply moral aspects to their undertakings; hence, will barely intend to harm such experimental animals. Since such ethical observations are carried out within the mentioned experimental testing, it is considerable to continue with the animal testing phenomenon. Adjusting the conditions of these tests might equally help in upholding the ethical demands.
Another argument is that animal testing simplifies and speeds the experimental designs meant to make discoveries. This could have not been achievable minus such experimental trends. Testing developed research products on animals elicit the desired results with promptness. It is daunting and time consuming to develop therapeutic and diagnostic compounds from human beings. This relates to the aspects of delay claimed earlier.
Scientists will not be able to attain their demands in time. This might discourage them from continuing with investigations. Since the use of animal testing provides instant results, its application is widespread, applicable, and viable in numerous contexts. The aspects of safety indicated earlier in these claims equally contribute to the applicability of animal testing. It is improper to execute unsafe experiments or unverified drugs on humans.
The repercussions might be devastating than when it was applied on test animals (Schmidt, 2001). For example, developments and investigations on HIV drugs cannot occur on humans at their initial stages. It is advisable to develop them through animal testing before rendering them usable by humans. It is possible to adjust the composition of the given compound to unveil its viable concentrations. Emerging with instant results supports the application of animal testing and contributes massively in this context.
Animal Testing: Conclusion
Animal testing is a helpful phenomenon in biological, medical, and other scientific investigations demanding its incorporation. The phenomenon is helpful, viable, and should be embraced despite the opposing opinions. Animal testing helps in developing effective, safe, viable, qualitative, and less toxic drugs. Following the merits of animal testing, its application and advancements should continue while observing ethical concerns.
References
Harrison, R. & Hester, R. (2006). Alternatives to Animal Testing. Ohio, OH: Cengage Learning.
Hayhurst, C. (2000). Animal testing: The animal rights debate. New York, NY: Rosen Pub. Group.
Panza, C. & Potthast, A. (2010). Ethics For Dummies. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.
Schmidt, A. (2001). Animal testing in infectiology. Basel: Karger.
Watson, S. (2009). Animal testing: Issues and ethics. New York, NY: Rosen Pub.
Vivisection or what is described as animal testing is an old practice. It could be dated back at a time of the primitive man, who could feed new food to some wild dogs to determine if it would be edible. Importantly, some princes utilized human guinea pigs to test whether their food was suitable for consumption (Rowan 194).
The act of animal testing is dated back to Greeks. 1n 450 BCE a Greek philosopher Alcmaeon did a vivisection and interfered with the dogs optic nerve, which was essential for physicians to evaluate the cause of blindness in human. (Watson 11). In the third and fourth centuries BCE, Aristotle (384-322 BCE) and Erasistratus (304-258 BCE) utilized animals for their experiments (Watson 11).
In the second century Rome, Claudius Galen, a physician experimenter performed dissections on goats as well as pigs to get knowledge of muscles and nerves and thus is renowned as the father of Vivisection (Watson 11). Moreover, in the twelfth century, another Arabic physician, Avenzoar dissected animals and established animal testing experiment in testing surgical processes prior to their application to man.
Historical milestones due to animal testing
In later centuries, William Harvey, a British surgeon evaluated the circulation of blood through animal testing, whose work triggered many researchers to engage in animal vivisection. Later, Anktoni Van Leeuwenhoek (1632-1723), had a microscopic study on animal tissues. Several historical milestones can be attributed to animal testing (Watson 12). For instance, in 1796, Edward Jenner, an English physician got sample from a cow with cowpox infection, inherited it into a boy and a vaccine for small pox was achieved.
Moreover, Louis Pasteur a French Chemist was the initiator for anthrax, rabies, cholera vaccine using animal tests m (Athanasiou & Darzi 208). The practice established in the seventeenth century when Jeremy Bentham, a philosopher, discarded the theory of Rene Descartes, which pointed out that animals could not reason, thus lacked pain or distress. However, Bentham stated that animals have feelings and their reason is not crucial in determining ethical issues surrounding their treatment (Watson 12).
Animal testing to safeguard public heath could be dated at the time the Romans, who came up with a public health mechanism to inspect food products while protecting the aqueducts from pollutants. Following the collapse of the Roman Empire, public health procedures were not systematically used up to the 19th century. Systematic animal testing on synthetic item for safety measures established in the 20th century when vaccines and biological therapeutic measures were being developed (Rowan 194).
In England, Cruelty to Animal Act of 1876 passage aimed at regulating animal testing where its notable that in 1921, just twenty thousand animals were utilized in biological therapeutic e.g. insulin bioassays, hormonal tests and vaccine testing. Prior to the Second World War however, 365,000 animals had been used for testing since 1921. This figure increased by 400% to over 3.5 million animals used by 1975 especially for toxicity and new drug testing (Rowan 194).
Cosmetic animal testing
Cosmetic animal testing involves using animals to test efficacy and safety of sanitary, hygienic and beauty products. On cosmetics, animal testing initiated in 1933 when a female utilized Lash Lure mascara to highlight her eye lashes. Following the act, her eyes got burnt followed by blindness and ultimate death. After then, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) passage of Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938, aimed to safeguard citizens from dangerous cosmetics (Rowan 196).
Draize test
The most significant tests conducted include Draize test used in the 1940s to evaluate skin and eye products as a directive given to John Draize by FDA. It include having the sample dropped in the eyes of an animal mostly albino rabbits and monitoring the response. It may lead to swelling, shock, bleeding, convulsions, iris inflammation, blindness, paralysis, or death depending on the concentration of the sample.
Lethal Dose 50
Lethal Dose 50 (LD50) was used first by J. W. Trevan in 1927 to evaluate the effectiveness of digitalis extracts and insulin as a toxicity measure. It is incorporated through forceful feeding on several animals with the sample, till half of them die. It may involve injections, ingestion, application and fumigation. The test is crude and inhumane since animals suffer in turn (Rowan 197). Charles River Laboratories are among other breeders of test animals.
Legal and Ethical issues surrounding animal testing
Today, many cosmetic firms are utilizing animals to test their products hence triggering several legal and ethical issues surrounding the procedure. These agencies that handle humane treatment of animals include The John Hopkins Centre for the Alternatives to Animal Testing established in 1981. Since then, cosmetics firm such as the U.S Revlon and Avon stopped testing its products on animals in 1989. However, many cosmetic firms today still use animals for testing for the sake of public health and to evade related litigations.
Conclusion
In conclusion, utilizing animals as mans surrogate is not only unethical but is also inaccurate and deteriorating to the environment. Therefore, alternative procedure such as cell culture, which is reliable, cheaper, and triggers no ethical or legal issues should be employed (Schmidt & Weber 89). Many animals suffer due to medical and cosmetic testing and may even die as a result. These testing for example, involves shaving fur of animals and applying corrosive samples on it.
Irrespective of such procedure, scientists asserts that animal testing cannot actually be relied on to safeguard human from dangerous products. These testing cause skin irritations, acute toxicity, skin sensitivity, eyes irritation, photosensitivity, mutagenicity, among other harmful effects to the animal, which is a violation of animal rights. As a result, animal testing should be banned as has been in the European Union countries such as UK and Netherlands where sale of such products is illegal
Works Cited
Athanasiou, Thanmos and Darzi, Ara. Key Topics in Surgical Research and Methodology. New York: Springer. 2009. Print.
Rowan, Andrew. Of Mice, Models, and Men: A Critical Evaluation of Animal Research. New York: SUNY Press. 1984. Print.
Schmidt, Axel and Weber, Olaf. Animal Testing in Infectiology. Basel. Switzerland: Karger Publishers. 2001. Print.
Watson, Stephanie. Animal Testing: Issues and Ethics. New York: The Rosen Publishing Group. 2009. Print.
Animal experimentation is the scientific use of animals for research and laboratory analyses. These experiments are common in medical schools, commercial facilities, universities and companies. Supporters of animal testing argue that majority of medical achievements are because of the researches.
However, some animal rights associations and organizations argue that the practice is cruel, outdated and poorly regulated. The activists argue that the costs incurred during research usually outweigh the outcomes or benefits of animal testing. The issue of animal research is today a major cause of debate and controversy. Animal rights associations argue that even animals have their rights. This paper discusses the issue of banning commercial organizations and companies from testing on different animals.
Effects of Banning Institutions from Animal Testing
The first implication of banning companies from animal testing is that they will have to develop new ways of product testing. After producing a certain product, different companies use animals to conduct their research. This makes it possible to determine the effectiveness of the product for human use or consumption.
However, a ban on animal testing will call for new approaches to carry out the same tests before declaring the products fit for human consumption. With the ban in place, companies will consider new options to ensure their business does not stop. If there is a ban on the testing, different companies will use huge resources and finances to conduct new researches.
They will also come up with new methods of testing their different products before deciding their effectiveness when used by human beings. In the book Animal Testing: Issues and Ethics, Stephanie has examined the ethical issues surrounding animal testing. She starts by stating that the practice is cruel and unacceptable. However, a ban on testing will call for new ways of testing the products. According to the author, the companies might be required to use human volunteers other than animals (Watson 37).
This can either threaten the health of the volunteers or lead to the production of substandard products because not many people will be willing to volunteer themselves. In the book, Watson Stephanie mentions that many companies, such as cosmetics manufacturers, will develop new methods of testing their new products.
The idea to ban companies from testing on animals will help improve the testing practices for various medical compounds and substances. The use of animal testing is not a good method to determine if human beings can use a certain drug without any complications. If the government bans animal testing, the companies will be required to consider modern methods for drug testing. According to Sheree Stachura, animal testing might not always reveal the best answers about the effectiveness of a certain drug.
A drug named choramphenicol was declared effective and safe for human use after several animal researches. However, this study found to be wrong after human intake. The idea to ban animal testing can force companies to come up with new testing procedures for their products. For example, pharmaceutical companies can use computer programs to test the toxicology of certain drugs (Stachura 149). In the article, the author supports the ban on animal research and testing.
The author believes that the ban will lead to better testing ideas and practices. If the government bans companies from using animals to conduct their studies and researches, it will be possible to have new methods for drug and product testing. It is notable that Sheree Stachura supports the opinion of the governmental bans. This will lead to the improvement in testing practices.
If the government bans companies from testing on animals, they might be forced to conduct their experiments and analyses in other countries were animal testing is still taking place. Many companies continue to carry various tests on animals in the developing world.
A ban on animal experimentation will result in a situation whereby our companies will consider the need to outsource the services from other companies in the developing world. This will be done as a way of promoting their scientific innovations and achievements. The restrictions will force many companies to test their drugs and products in certain countries such as India and China where there are no similar restrictions.
In these developing countries, the companies will not face any restrictions or obstacles. In the United States, many people and organizations have continued to protest because they are against animal testing. The companies will be required to outsource their activities and researches abroad.
The idea will make it impossible for these companies and organizations to offer useful products and materials to the consumers (Pocha 77). In his article Comparative Advantage, Pocha believes that any bans of animal research and testing will require different companies to test their final products in the developing world where there will be no similar restrictions.
The idea to place a ban on animal research will have adverse implications on learning institutions and research agencies. The author believes that it is unnecessary to implement the ban on animal experimentation and testing. The author also believes that there is need for new policies and ideas promote the success of these companies.
The other issue arising from the ban on animal research is that these organizations and companies will never be effective. It is agreeable that animal testing is an important exercise for scientists and drug researchers. The use of animals helps to determine the effectiveness of a certain drug before administering it to humans.
When there is a ban on animal testing, some companies will come up with new methods for drug testing while others will have to abandon the practice. This will result in a situation whereby the companies are no longer producing new drugs. In his article Toxicology for the Twenty-First Century, Thomas Hartung believes that these companies help a lot towards drug production. This means that animal testing will always be an important tool for individuals and companies who test various drugs.
The author states that the government should be aware of the dangers and risks of banning animal testing (Hartung 209). Even if the companies are banned from the practice, they will have to develop new ideas and methods of drug testing. For instance, the author identifies the use of omics technologies and bioinformatics as potential options to animal testing. Any ban on animal testing will result in a situation whereby companies come up with new ideas for drug and product testing.
A ban from testing on animals will force companies to face the conflict of ideas and interests. The idea to ban companies from testing on animals is important because it will help to give animals their rights and ensure healthy products are delivered to the users. Most of the companies will have to consider the issue of animal rights and at the same time safeguard the rights of the consumers. These companies will have to identify the best methods to test their drugs and products without necessarily having to use animals or humans.
This will help the companies to come up with new technologies though research and development. Some companies might come together and work on the available options. It would be necessary to help them come up with the best ideas for performing product testing and analysis. In his article, Kristian examines the political acts that require different manufacturing companies to stop all forms of animal experimentation and testing.
The author believes that the practice is effective but it does not consider the rights of animals and consumers. This leads to what the author calls conflict of interest (Fischer 176). The companies will be expected to think about the rights of animals and at the same time focus on the rights of the consumers. The important thing is to have the government and the manufacturing companies working together to develop the best alternatives to animal experimentation and testing.
The banning of companies from testing on animals will force the manufacturers to use conventional methods to test their drugs and products. Some of these methods include the use of rodent bioassays and computational modeling. Although these methods of drug testing are expensive and sophisticated, they are usually able to detect the exact biological implications and effects of the drugs under experimentation.
The use of animals might not identify the toxicity levels for various drugs and chemical substances. If the government bans companies from testing on animals, it will be possible for the manufacturers to consider new methods that can address the issue of drug toxicity in humans.
The practice will ensure new drugs are produced capable of treating various diseases and conditions. In the article Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century: Defining New Risk Assessment Approaches Based on Perturbation of Intra-cellular Toxicity Pathways, Sudin Bhattacharya offers a discussion on the consequences of banning animal research and testing (Bhattacharya 8).
The researcher states that most of the animal tests are unable to detect the biological performance and roles of drug substances in the body. This means that new approaches can be considered for drug testing. The author believes that a ban on animal testing will make it easier for companies to use bioassays and computational modeling to test their drugs. Sudin stresses the need for alternatives to these practices and testing approaches.
Conclusion
Animal researches are widely used to test the effectiveness of drugs and other products. The practice is vital in the production of new drugs and substances for human use. However, most of these researches will cause enormous to the study animals. The lifespan of the animal is destroyed by these tests and experiments.
Different groups and activists have argued that it is wrong and unacceptable to cause these animals unnecessary pain. This calls for the best practices to safeguard the rights of these animals. This has resulted in a controversy with the government seeking to ban companies from testing on various animals. As discussed in this paper, the idea to ban these practices will force companies to seek new alternatives to safeguard their business.
Works Cited
Bhattacharya, Sudin. Toxicity Testing in the 21St Century: Defining New Risk Assessment Approaches Based On Perturbation Of Intracellular Toxicity Pathways. Plos ONE 6.6 (2011): 1-11. Print.
Fischer, Kristian. Testing Bans and Marketing Bans Under The Cosmetics Directive. European Food & Feed Law Review 4.3 (2009): 172-184. Print.
Hartung, Thomas. Toxicology For The Twenty-First Century. Nature 460.7252 (2009): 208-212. Print.
Pocha, Jehangir S., and H. Brown. Comparative Advantage. Forbes 178.10 (2006): 76-78. Print.
Stachura, Sheree. Drug Safety: An Argument To Ban Animal Testing. Journal Of Nursing Law 12.4 (2008): 147-156. Print.
Watson, Stephanie. Animal Testing: Issues and Ethics. New York: Rosen Publishing Group, 2009. Print.
Cosmetic studies on animals refer to a specific type of product examination meant to ascertain the hypoallergenic nature and safety of animal products intended for use by human beings. Due to the pain and harm the animals are subjected to, there is a concerted effort by the animal activists and other people to have it forbidden. The practice is banned in some countries because it is considered cruel and unethical. The testing is mostly done by companies to establish product safety before they are released to the market. Several methods are used to conduct the exercise on different types of animals (Hadley, 2017). For these tests to be done, several animals have to suffer pain or die. One of the methods employed for product testing is called dermal penetration which uses rats. It aims at analyzing how chemicals penetrate the bloodstream and their effects on the body. The technique targets to understand better how they infiltrate the skin. Another testing system is called skin sensitization, and it targets to test the allergic reactions of the chemicals. In this technique, a chemical is injected into the body of the animal to boost the immune system and then observed for some time to monitor how the body responds (Rowser, 2019). The animals mostly used in this particular test are the guinea pigs, and the chemical is applied to the shaved part of its skin.
The third and perilous method is called acute toxicity and is used to measure the threats of exposure to chemicals by the skin or mouth. The technique is unsafe because the affected animals, which mostly are mice and rats, experience loss of motor function, convulsions, and even seizures. Moreover, there is a method called the Draize test which usually causes corrosion on the eyes skin, disruptions of the endocrine system, dermal, and airway sensitization, and irritation on the affected parts (Lawrence, 2018). This type of testing subjects the animals to immense suffering which sometimes leads to death. Another method causing damage to the skin is called skin corrosivity. The technique tests the potential effects of a substance and is mostly done on rabbits, and it entails putting the chemicals on the shaved part of the skin (Lawrence, 2018). In most cases, the animals which experience this test suffer irreversible damage to the vital organs.
An analysis of these approaches shows that the animals which are exposed to the tests undergo immense pain which in most cases leads to permanent injuries to the body organs and even death. Due to the suffering the animals are subjected to, some countries, such as Columbia, have proclaimed the practice illegal (Lawrence, 2018). Furthermore, animal activists, along with other people concerned about the rights of animals from all over the world, have been campaigning and advocating for the practice to be outlawed (Lawrence, 2018). The efforts by the advocates are gradually succeeding although their wish is to have the exercise stopped immediately.
The opponents of this practice are advocating for the right of animals to live, and that is why they have mounted campaigns globally to ensure that the crusade succeeds. They have proposed other alternative ways of testing that do not involve animals. For instance, they suggest that instead of subjecting rats, mice, and rabbits to such cruelty, the companies should do the testing using 3D structures that are extracted from the human cells (Rowser, 2019). Israel and India have responded to activists calls to have the practice prohibited by forbidding products from countries that support cosmetic testing on animals. The prohibition means that other countries, which want to sell products there, have to stop animal testing. The ban followed serious campaigns by animal rights groups globally. The European Union also did the same in the markets of their countries (Sass, 2016). Due to rigorous campaigns, some companies have also stopped the testing of animals on their products, and have designed alternative methods.
Animal rights are completely violated with such kind of cruelty. They deserve to be treated with respect, and when they are subjected to painful tests, they are denied such fundamental rights. They are not mere tools of scientific experiments simply because they are not human. Animals and human beings are similar in many respects such as thinking, feeling, behaving, and experiencing pain. Therefore, all other creatures should be accorded the same respect as people because of those shared attributes (Sepahban, 2015). The kind of pain the animals are subjected to without being given any choice is too much and needs to be stopped. Scientists are also concerned that in some types of studies animals are completely different from humans; therefore, the research findings cannot precisely predict the effects some products will have on people. The way substances act in the body of non-human creatures is different from the way it acts in the body of the latter (Rowser, 2019). Therefore, apart from the ethical perspectives, the issue of human relevance should discourage companies from using animals for product studies
Animal testing is expensive when compared with other methods that employ inanimate objects. One of such techniques involves sophisticated tests using human cells and tissues, innovative computer modeling techniques as well as studies with human volunteers. These examinations are advantageous because they are not defined by the animal species as is the case when using animals. Another merit of these alternative methods of testing is that they cost little money and effort to get results. Furthermore, the findings are precise, and accurate because they have little margin of error (Rowser, 2019). An American organization called People for Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) supports and funds governments and companies globally on the use of non-animal product testing methods (Rowser, 2019). The organization targets eradicating animal product testing by empowering organizations to design alternative ways of ensuring the safety of the product.
The animals do not benefit when they are subjected to such cruelty; only human beings do. Therefore, there is a need to look for alternative ways of conducting the tests in the cosmetic industry. Since they are not able to vocalize their problems, choices, and preferences then decisions are made for them by human beings. When companies decide to use animals for research. When animals are deprived of their rights, there is no thought about the quality of their lives. They experience pain the way people do, and studies have shown that how they react to pain is identical to that of human beings (Sass, 2016). For instance, when they are used for toxicity tests they are subjected to intense pain and some of the results are dire because the vital organs in the body are damaged.
Finally, the testing of animals for products is not necessary because several alternatives do not use animal subjects. Apart from the companies resorting to the use of 3D structures, they should focus more on the use of natural products such as bananas, and nut oil which do not require such tests. Computers can also be used to estimate the potential damage that a chemical or product is likely to have in the body of a human body.
References
Hadley, J. (2017). Nonhuman animal property: Reconciling environmentalism and animal rights. In C. Palmer (Ed.), Animal rights (pp. 465-475). Routledge.
Lawrence, R. (2018). Should animal testing be banned? Greenhaven Publishing. Rowser, A. L. (2019). Ethical beauty products. The Rosen Publishing Group Sass, H.-M. (2016). Cultures in bioethics. LIT Verlag Sepahban, L. (2015). Animal testing: Life-saving research vs. animal welfare. Capstone.
This study is based on secondary data to study how animal testing has affected the public and their attitude towards it. It also hoped to encourage people to support or join the Cruelty Free International such as the organization of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), the Choose Cruelty Free and the company such as The Body Shop and Lush.
1. Introduction
The animal welfare and ethical issues of animal testing in Hong Kong are being concerned, Claudia Mo of the Hong Kong Legislative Council even mentioned the control of animal testing during the meeting (GovHK Press Releases, 2018). The different aspects of animal testing will be included in this review with examples, the benefits and consequences of animal testing, for example, it is time-consuming, requires qualified scientists and high costs. Besides, the ethical issues that why animal testing is acceptable or unacceptable will be discussed, for example, the pain, suffer and death that caused to the animals during the experiments are needed to consider. Moreover, a 3 Rs (reduction, refinement and replacement) strategy is an important method for solving the experiment of animal problems.
2. Literature Review
Animal testing is any form of scientific test or experiment that forced an animal to undergo and cause them suffering or pain. It involves injecting or compel feeding possibly destructive contents or inhaling toxic chemical gas, disclosing animals to radiation, tissues or organ removal surgeries that cause damage of the animals and put the animals under terrifying conditions (Cruelty Free, 2018). The purpose of animal testing mainly divided into three types, cosmetics, drug development, researches for science or, health and medical. For examples, the cosmetic company utilizes animal testing to ensure their products will not cause negative responses in humans such as irritation or allergy. Animal testing applied in researches is because the physiology of animals such as mouse shares the similarity of human (Johnson, 2018).
According to the California Biomedical Research Association (2015), there are approximately 17 to 23 million animals are applied in researches per year. The majority of those animals are mice and rat, the other animals include rabbits, frogs and guinea pigs.
2.1 Benefits of Animal Testing
The animal testing benefit human in different ways, for instance, the first successful human kidney transplant could not accomplish in the mid-1900s if the surgery was not perfect by animal testing previously. Also, the development of vaccines and antibiotics, studying HIV and cancers. Animal testing helps us to access the side effects of medicine (Rogers, 2007). Apart from that, the insulin for diabetes was discovered and invented by dog experiments (Understanding Animal Research, 2014), it helps the scientists finding a new method to inject insulin without using needles and syringes.
In addition, according to Foundation for Biomedical Research (2018), there are 180 of 216 Nobel award recipients in the Medicine or Physiology category are used animal experiments, it shows that animal testing is significant in medical researches.
2.2 Drawback of Animal Testing
However, animal testing can cause the animal pain and suffer, it is cruel and inhumane. For example, the “Draize Test” refers to the cosmetic company kept the rabbit eyelids opened with clips for days exorbitantly, as it prevents they blink and affect the experiment results (Scientific American, 2019). Also, animal testing is costly, time-consuming and unreliable. With reference to Cruelty Free (2018), the USA offers $50 billion each year in scientific researches, and there are over 1,000 successful results in animal testing but only around 10% can carry on to human trails.
There are also alternative methods available now to replace animal testing, A UK-based laboratory has started to use human skin cells for cosmetic tests (Stock, 2016), it reveals a new direction that cosmetic product tests can be done without animals. The ethical cosmetic companies, Lush, also deliver their product ingredients to the laboratory as they have fighting animal testing for over 30 years.
References
California Biomedical Research Association. (2015). CBRA fact sheet: why are animal necessary in biomedical research. Retrieved from
Cruelty Free International. (2018). What is animal testing. Retrieved from https://www.crueltyfreeinternational.org/why-we-do-it/what-animal-testing
Foundation for Biomedical Research. (2018). Nobel Prizes in medicine. Retrieved from https://fbresearch.org/medical-advances/nobel-prizes/
GovHK Press Releases. (2018). Control of experiments on animals. Retrieved from https://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/201803/21/P2018032100241.htm?fontSize=1
Johnson, S. (2018). What is the purpose of animal testing. Retrieved from https://sciencing.com/purpose-animal-testing-6552791.html
Rogers. K. (2007). Scientific alternatives to animal testing: A progress report. Retrieved from http://advocacy.britannica.com/blog/advocacy/2007/09/scientific-alternatives-to-animal-testing-a-progress-report/
Scientific American. (2019). Do cosmetic companies still test on live animals. Retrieved from https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cosmetics-animal-testing/
Stock. M. (2016). Human skin used in animal-free cosmetic tests. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-animal-free-testing/human-skin-cells-used-in-animal-free-cosmetic-tests-idUSKCN0Z91YE
Understanding Animal Research. (2014). Insulin for diabetes. Retrieved from http://www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk/why/human-health/insulin-for-diabetes